This ERIC digest discusses the use of dissenting U.S. Supreme Court decisions in teaching about U.S. constitutional history. for most of its history, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a single opinion indicating its decision in a case. The Court disposes of each case it reviews by majority rule (either affirming or reversing) and provides a rationale for its decision. The disposition and rationale are both critical elements of the Court's decision. In providing reasons for its decision, the Court may offer constitutional interpretations that have a significant impact on U.S. law and society. In cases where some justices do not agree completely with the Court's decision, they may write or join concurring and dissenting opinions. In "concurring" opinions, justices agree with the majority regarding the outcome of the case, but disagree in some way with the reasons that support the outcome. In "dissenting" opinions, justices disagree with the outcome of the case and present rationales for their views. Justices offer reasons for their decisions based on their understanding of law, history, and policy. Unlike the Court's majority opinions, dissents have no legal force. They can, however, encourage federal legislation to reverse or limit the Court's decision. They may influence the Court in future decisions. This ERIC digest focuses on four exceptional cases, in which dissents have attained landmark status in U.S. legal history in that they influenced subsequent reversals by the Court or have come to articulate revised opinions of the Court. (Author/DK)